Well, one of the main reasons that makes MAC OSX more stable and easier to use than Windows (and other OS) is that Mac OSX is hardware dependent.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jobs: Leopard Will Anchor Product Schedule For A Decade
- Thread starter kjs862
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, one of the main reasons that makes MAC OSX more stable and easier to use than Windows (and other OS) is that Mac OSX is hardware dependent.
Well, the G4 and G5 owners shouldn't be. Applications are getting more complex whereas they cannot be run on certain hardware, given the new iMovie for example. G4 Macs especially are limited and G5 is becoming that way as well. You have to remember for Apple, Microsoft and others it's a business and they cannot and will not keep babysitting the customers that refuse to upgrade by making the new OS's support legacy hardware.
In a typical software development model, you have people working on a release well before the previous version is put out. Remember that the guy coding something isn't generally the guy figuring out how it will work, which isn't the guy figuring out which problems need to be solved. Software development is often a pipelined approach.
The downside to this approach is that you don't see reaction to what your 'n' release is until you've gone well down the path of designing the 'n+1' release. "Agile" development addresses this somewhat, but has its own set of drawbacks (and, still, you have people thinking "big picture" of the next several releases down the road before you put out "this" release).
The Leopard/iPhone conflict is that the same teams (low-level engineers for various OS areas) were needed on both projects at the same time. This (planning two major OS releases at the same time) is the opposite of a pipelined approach, and for fairly obvious reasons didn't work out as well as someone had hoped.
Basically: Apple doesn't necessarily have parallel development teams (an approach I've never seen work well with a complex product, btw), but that doesn't mean they haven't gone significantly far down the path of designing and even coding OS X 10.6 at this point.
All the things that Apple has been working have been, in my opinion, catalysts to further Mac development. Yes, iPods, etc. bring in huge amounts of revenue. But sometimes people make it like everything was bright and shiny, and then all these little gadgets came in and crashed the Mac party. In my opinion, it actually happened like this:
1. Macs were selling like crap.
2. Macs were redesigned to look cool. They still sold like crap. OS 9 in a colored box still was too old school.
3. OS X released. Slow as anything, but the future was born. Only thing is: it's only for Mac users.
4. iPod was introduced. Made the world say "hmmmm....interesting!"
5. iPod catches on mainstream. PC users buy them. Many think "Why can't my computer look this cool and work this well too?"
6. Apple is waiting for them with Apple Stores where they can check out iPods and computers that now are as innovative as the iPods they use: Macs with OS X.
7. Apple introduces all the other devices that people complain is taking the company away from the Mac. Ironically, this causes more Mac sales.
Just what I think...
I think you really hit on it with your post as well. People talk about 'verbless' iPhones, not having to worry about driver issues on their computers, etc...
I think that's where the difference lies between Apple and other leaders in industry. Apple's whole model seems more about making technology more and more transparent for the end user, so everything from the iPhone, iPod, iMac, etc... will be more like a Microwave than a traditional computer.
You don't have to know about electromagnetics if you want to make popcorn in a microwave, and you shouldn't have to know what a driver is and what version you need for your specific computer, etc... just so you can listen to music or type an email. Somebody obviously has to worry about that kind of thing, but not the end user.
That's really my view on what Apple is doing and where they are going.
Apple isn't perfect either, not by a longshot. I think they have the right idea though in terms of what people want and expect from future technology products.
I don't see why people are getting confused by code name and version name.
Just like iLife '08, if you look at version number of iPhoto, it's actually iPhoto 7. That's all. Windows XP is windows 6. Windows 7 is the next one.
You're right... it isn't going to happen. The clone program was one of the very first projects that Steve Jobs axed when he came on board as CEO. It was a stupid move on Spindler's part because Apple's bread and butter is all in the hardware. Steve Jobs is very fond of Alan Kay's philosophy that "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
Granted, I won't say "never"... because Jobs has been known to change his mind as time changes the rules of the game... He killed Newton and then resurrected several of the ideas surrounding Newton, the latest being "Stacks" which was resurrected from the "Piles" patent that was filed in conjunction with developing software for the Newton/e-Mate (also note the ARMv6 processor architecture in the iPhone, a descendant of the ARM6 Newton processor, co-developed by Apple and Acorn, forming ARM Limited as a joint venture). It's all about timing.
The thing is, though, is that multiple platform support is not Apple's forte.... they're perfectly profitable without having the added headache of supporting their software on umpteen different hardware platforms. And they do the hardware for OS X better than anyone else could. That's the difference... Microsoft never really got serious about hardware. Apple has always been about hardware and I think that is something that Spindler and others did not really appreciate. They thought Apple should be about brand dominance by breadth of portfolio. Jobs always understood that the way you make people like you is by making them want you, not by making them need you... that is what separates him from Bill Gates, the latter ostensibly lacking style in every sense of the word.
And you completely missed the point. Apple forces the upgrades on you. If you want to really update any of the other software you have to buy a new OS. That is how apple forces it on you.
Apple dropping major support for an OS means Devs normally follow shortly afterwards. As for supporting an older OS I think 3 years after the replacement is in is a good round number. That way some one is not force to update there computer during the time it hardware is still useful.
No PPC support next time around?
Sure there will. Just like a bunch of people got mad when the iPhone price dropped.... or when Apple first moved to USB and got rid of the legacy ADB connector, or .....
The thing people need to come to grips with is, the ONLY thing you're guaranteed to get with your product is exactly what shipped with it. Buying a new Mac never enters you into some sort of mythical "upgrade agreement" with Apple, guaranteeing you compatibility with future software releases.
A few years ago, my Mac collection consisted of a G4 Powerbook notebook and a Dual 2.0Ghz G5 tower, plus an older "Quicksilver" G4 PowerMac I upgraded with 3rd. party enhancements. Today? I have all Intel-based Macs, including a Mac Pro tower, a Macbook Pro notebook, and a 20" Intel-based iMac. That's because I take computers seriously (I do this stuff for a living, plus it's been my primary "hobby" for 15+ years.). Even if I was MUCH slower about selling my old systems and upgrading them -- I'd *still* be able to run the latest and greatest Apple offerings for at LEAST the next year down the road.
If you think your Mac purchase should last you a good 6 or 7 years before ever having to upgrade it, fine. But that mentality means you're the type who can get by just fine on the OS you've already got on it. Apple shouldn't punish people (like me) who do shell out the $'s for their new stuff, just to retain "backwards compatibility" for years and years. That's what made Windows products big and bloated.
Sure there will. Just like a bunch of people got mad when the iPhone price dropped.... or when Apple first moved to USB and got rid of the legacy ADB connector, or .....
The thing people need to come to grips with is, the ONLY thing you're guaranteed to get with your product is exactly what shipped with it. Buying a new Mac never enters you into some sort of mythical "upgrade agreement" with Apple, guaranteeing you compatibility with future software releases.
A few years ago, my Mac collection consisted of a G4 Powerbook notebook and a Dual 2.0Ghz G5 tower, plus an older "Quicksilver" G4 PowerMac I upgraded with 3rd. party enhancements. Today? I have all Intel-based Macs, including a Mac Pro tower, a Macbook Pro notebook, and a 20" Intel-based iMac. That's because I take computers seriously (I do this stuff for a living, plus it's been my primary "hobby" for 15+ years.). Even if I was MUCH slower about selling my old systems and upgrading them -- I'd *still* be able to run the latest and greatest Apple offerings for at LEAST the next year down the road.
If you think your Mac purchase should last you a good 6 or 7 years before ever having to upgrade it, fine. But that mentality means you're the type who can get by just fine on the OS you've already got on it. Apple shouldn't punish people (like me) who do shell out the $'s for their new stuff, just to retain "backwards compatibility" for years and years. That's what made Windows products big and bloated.
What? and vista was compatible with all drivers? Somehow i think that Leopard will have just fine support for drivers, at least compared to the Vista release
I have to agree though, it can be a pain to get drivers.
Don't be so hasty.
Full native ZFS support, for example, could have been a long-term research project intended ultimately for 10.6 when it's been worked on since before 10.5
Forced upgrades?
How is this different than Windows? Try installing the latest (or even the 2003 version!) of Microsoft Office on an older PC running Windows '98. All you get is a dialog box telling you it only works on a newer operating system, and it cancels the install!
You can't run the current version of Windows Media Player on a Windows '98 or ME machine either.
And most recently, you can't make any use of the latest version of "Direct-X" video extensions in any OS older than Windows Vista.
How is this different than Windows? Try installing the latest (or even the 2003 version!) of Microsoft Office on an older PC running Windows '98. All you get is a dialog box telling you it only works on a newer operating system, and it cancels the install!
You can't run the current version of Windows Media Player on a Windows '98 or ME machine either.
And most recently, you can't make any use of the latest version of "Direct-X" video extensions in any OS older than Windows Vista.
Personally, I think Apple will continue to focus on its computers and deliver great products in all of its businesses. People are complaining because they don't like change. It has nothing to do with how much attention Apple is putting on its computers.
I think the G4's will be rules out of the next release. There are too many G5's out there in the industry atm. Considering the quality of apple hardware, there will be plenty of G5's still there chugging away in 12 - 18 months.
aussie_geek
That is bull. The "fault" is with the market and with third party software developers. There's nothing stopping a developer from releasing software that runs on 10.2 today.
The reason many don't is because they want to take advantages of new features of the newer OS, and they weigh the work involved to make a special version for 10.2 with the number of customers still using 10.2 that would buy the product.
But Apple isn't forcing any of this. The industry and customers just moved on without you.
3 years sounds good to you, but for developers, the number of customers still running the older version is what matters.
A new OS every 12 - 18 months? Sounds like a way of trying to guarantee a revenue stream. In other words, money from my pockets to the shareholders.
Not that there's anything wrong with making money but how long before the OS releases aren't worth it? People talk about the XP to Vista upgrade cycle but MS aimed for the stars, shot towards the moon and barely got out of the stratosphere. They'll do better next time.
Not that there's anything wrong with making money but how long before the OS releases aren't worth it? People talk about the XP to Vista upgrade cycle but MS aimed for the stars, shot towards the moon and barely got out of the stratosphere. They'll do better next time.
Aussie that's a scary little thing thing you have crawling under your forum name. Where did you get that? I thought there was a bug crawling on my new iMac screen.
lets see Office 2003. Isnt that 3 years after Windows 2000..... Also office 03 came out after M$ drop major support for the entire windows 9.x line.
My problem with apple is on Oct 25 all major support for Tiger will be dropped. Hell I bet they already have dropped it. I think you are missing the point apple force obsoleteness is the problem. If apple did not shove that on people then Devs would still support the older OS.
Hell it would be nice to see one of apple OS make it to 3 years before the Obsolete kicks in.
Microsoft doesn't even fully support their own software compatibility on their own OS versions. I bought Microsoft Office 2000 with Photodraw which worked with Windows 2000 and was never made compatible with XP and dropped from future Office versions. One year? What a waste. Little did I know when I upgraded to XP a year later my photo editing application would become obsolete.
I really can't wait for Windows: codename 7. The little that's known about it is a new or redefined GUI (whatever), but also that it's not going to be holding on to the Windows legacy. This means, it could actually be built off of a Linux kernel with NT6 virtualized for compatibility. This means.. better memory management, better security, and better..well, just about everything. and then who knows what you can do? IF MS can pull it off, then Apple will have something to watch out for.. and I really hope they can, I HATE the dock!
No, it just shows that you're completely clueless
I had to laugh reading this. After waiting for everything Microsoft has promised for the past 20 years I've learned that they simply lie. No other way to describe it. Wait for what we have coming it is super duper great! Then nothing, nothing, nothing. And do you know how Linux licensing works? Can't be used in Microsoft OS unless they go the free route and charge for support. Seems a radical change from the uber licensing strategy they have built
yes. I think the time span between 10.4 and 10.5 is making some think that upgrades will take longer with each release. If you include the port to Intel as a version as Apple does and take into account SJ comments it would suggest 2009 for 10.6.
Yes it is good from a revenue perspective, but also from a software development perspective. With big, complicated systems (such as OSes) small frequent releases are a recipe for success whereas big multi-year changes are a recipe for problems.